typo : "(noticeably sharper than the Panasonic's FZ100's lens at 24mm)" ="FZ1000" --there are both 100 & 1000, but surely you mean the latter (as the other lacks 24mm, reaching down to 25mm only).-d.
Dimit: They've gone crazy over there ay Panasonic!!! Should be mentally retarded not to grab A7ii instead of this m43 monster.Stupidity reigns !!!
>, they are dark and expensive.
> Why there are no small lenses on FF with the same> equivalent parameters as MFT lenses? Nobody wants them.> Nobody wants 24-70 f5.6 lens for 1000usd in full frame> world. This only happens in MFT rip off world.
Hey, "Dark" lord, tell me what the difference (if not equivalence) is of shooting your beloved FF with a 70-200 f/4 (nobody wants 5.6!) to get the DOF coverage of a 35-100 f/2.8, at same ISO : how's your un-"dark" lens keeping up, shutter-wise?Geesh, you are worse than a mere bore!)-:<
Eugene232: don't understand all buzz about this camera.I had an EPL5 which has a the same outdated sensor,IQ is a mediocre
Each time I read about the supposed agedness of the E-M5's Sony 16mpx sensor, I recall how much fashion photog James Russell of Russell-Rutherford (posting on LuLa as "BCooter") praises it for great color separation (and finds that it delivers "prettier" images than his workhorse Canon 1DX, and better than the Pany-sensor'd E-M1) --to wit (as referred to by another shooter with similar appraisal):
[http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=86337.msg733774#msg733774]" I also agree with BC about the look of the two cameras' files. There's greater tonal separation/differentiation with the E-M5. Sensor differences, CFA differences...whatever it is I wish the E-M1 had the same look."
But does someone want to be shooting at ISO XXX,XXX? Nope, the E-M5 won't go there.
ekaton: Nice camera body with some good tricks up the electronic sleeves built around an aging Sony mft sensor. The next generation might be a buy. EM5, EM1, EM10, EM5II, EP5, EPL7 ........ same old same old as far as the sensor is concerned. Visible noise already at iso400, DR so so, harsh digital rendering, tonal transitions with small sensor look. The system has a lot going for it but Sony should put some research resources behind the mft sensor. There are rumors that Panasonic will announce a mft "super sensor" soon.
> built around an aging Sony mft sensor
!? Interesting to read the quite contrasting opinion of fashion pro James Russell of Russell-Rutherford (posting as BCooter on LuLa), who praises the great color separation of this "aged" Sony sensor --vs. his also-used 1DX & E-M1 (& S2, though I've not seen him compare this to M5; just vs. newer CMOS prospect).
Drofnad: 1) Thanks for making --though one sh/could make it more strongly-- the point that "full frame" is a deceit to reality : that medium format is *fuller*, so to speak, and one can even go larger than that --but certainly there is medium format (available more cheaply in used gear, a real option).
2) "superior IQ" :: A long time ago (2010 October), Luminous Landscape made a splash with assertions that in a test of PRINTED output from a then-new compact camera (Canon G10) and an established 39mpx med.format one (Phase One back on a Hasselblad, IIRC), viewers with good familiarity with photographic output were unable to tell which camera had printed which image (!!). Now, to date, I've yet to see ANYthing on the Net challenging this bold assertion ("You've Got to be Kidding!"), but lots of echoes of its conclusions. (I remain skeptical.)But, to the point, what IS this "superior IQ" so often asserted (with implied obvious distinctions of "blows away..." !) ?
.:. need more such tests!
> From all the photographers I know - only minority prints their photographs or think about prints quality while buying a camera.
So then what is their need for superior IQ --"100% crops" posted on Net forums?
1) Thanks for making --though one sh/could make it more strongly-- the point that "full frame" is a deceit to reality : that medium format is *fuller*, so to speak, and one can even go larger than that --but certainly there is medium format (available more cheaply in used gear, a real option).
LarryLatchkey: Distortion looks quite low at 24mm, I guess that's a reasonable performance for such a zoom. Would be cool to know the distortion percentages.
A pity the design isn't sexier. Looks rather indistinct and slightly 'rustic' to my eyes. A comparative sidelook at the Leica model would have been interesting ...Anyway, thanks for the nice review.
> handled both, there is no sig. diff.
For you; others have other thoughts --and why else should Leica, again (I'm aware of their usual costlier clones), have to sell a separate grip?
As for "that DNG thing", isn't is now understood, as one Leica-asosciated (official, so to speak) reviewer has stated, "One thing I can say is that the RAW files are NOT DNG (but RWL files - same as the LX100)" ?
The things folks do to try to rationalize that costly red dot ... !(camera l00ks, of course, essential --and it really looks so great (huh?) ! :-)
The "significant" diff. is that Leica wants an extra $$ beyond their already too-high price for adding a GRIP to the body --you know, something to WORK with (rather than --what's this?-- l00k at) !
If you use the comparator tool, Seems like Pany's own FZ1000 outscores, albeit marginally, the LX100 in 6 of the critical parameters, IQ, JPEG and RAW, Optics, Performance and Video. Being close to the same 'class' of camera, would ypu say FZ1000 is slightly better than LX100? Only on the above parameters.
>> in favor of the GX7 by a large margin <<NOOO --oops, mea culpa, alas (damn these confusing camera names), NB : "G7 X" --i.e,. Canon G7 X, the new 1"-sensor thing;not "GX7", the Pany body whose sensor is allegedly used in LX100. I meant to refer to the Canon G7 X and its DPRating.
And as I also followed up to your observation below, "really, this LX100 rating --one way or the other-- is off by two measures : absolute (vis-a-vis the "Excellent" position) and relative (vs. GX 7's bars)!" The GX 7 is shown better by the bars, yet verbally described as worse, for IQ (i.e., the LX100 is said to be "superior" in IQ).
Drofnad: I find it puzzling to read "Excellent stills image quality - especially in Raw" and yet see of the bar-graphed qualities that IQ is the farthest from Excellent of all save for Value (Raw better than JPEG, slightly) !?
"most compacts that they rate Excellent have similar ..."Ha! Take a gander at that for competitor G7 X : laying a transparent small ruler on my 24" screen I see that it has slightly BETTER Raw & JPEG bars, and a much better High ISO one (nearly a full measure-mark closer to Excellent), and yet DPR say of it, in direct comparison, "The Panasonic LX100 is the newest entry to the enthusiast compact market and offers superior image quality" !?? One might ask that some numeric value be coded beside each bar (presumably, there is some rhyme & reason to the bar's length). But, really, this LX100 rating --one way or the other-- is off by two measures : absolute (vis-a-vis the "Excellent" position) and relative (vs. GX 7's bars)!
I find it puzzling to read "Excellent stills image quality - especially in Raw" and yet see of the bar-graphed qualities that IQ is the farthest from Excellent of all save for Value (Raw better than JPEG, slightly) !?
Nice graphic showing the lenses' sizes; I'd like to add to that what the size would be were the LX7's scaled up to a similarly reduced-size (for multi-aspect) 1" sensor : it would top the G7 X's speed at about the same range.
raztec: This camera is an amazingly ambitious attempt at creating the perfect compact travel anywhere camera. However, I'm not sure it really hit that mark. But I applaud Panasonic for trying.
The reasons are:
1. The m4/3 size sensor doesn't give significantly better IQ than a 1" sensor. While it gives shallower depth of field, which is great, I believe that's offset by the expensive and slightly compromised lens and much larger size. Even the high ISO isn't significantly better than the Sony RX100III.
2. No tilt screen. This is an absolute must if you want use it as a video camera. It's a huge oversight in my opinion. Flash I can live without, but not a tilt screen.
But where it really delivers is in styling, 4K video (and still capture), fast lens, and manual control options. It's obvious that this is a real photographer's camera. But I believe Panasonic could have achieved all that with a 1" sensor, smaller camera and tilt screen.
I agree in spirit, raztec, but would take some different details : for your item #1, let's get another "name" than "LX..."; and for item #2, I'm willing (maybe you) to see multi-aspect workings reducing the 20mpx max to, e.g., 17-16-17 (would like a larger --than previous LX-- square aspect than crop of 4:3!), and thereby hope that the lens could be as relatively stellar as that 24-90 / 1.4-2.3 of the LX7!! (I want DoF and light, not shallowness, from the "fast" glass!) And maybe the stabilization gets even better, too!
One should remark at the **pair** : typically, queens don't nest in pairs, but sometimes I think that sister queens will move in together --rather, more that one will move in with the other who's already begun a nest. (This tiny nest hasn't produced an adult, we can deduce from the size of cells.) I saw such a sharing happen one time, and it came only grudgingly on the part of the nest maker. There is an advantage : there's a parasitic fly that will lay eggs in the nest if it can --how sad to then see a wasp queen tend to young that will never come.
Regarding the lens, DPR presents a neat graphic comparing sizes::
>On the left is the size and design of the LX7's lens.> Next is the LX100.> On the far right is how gigantic the lens would be> if Panasonic simply upscaled the lens used on the LX7> to cover the larger sensor area.
1) Is this gigantic lens covering a true 4/3 area, or the lesser one of the LX100? (And that this lens is for eqiv. 24-90 & not 24-75.)
2) I'd like to see how the LX7-designed lens would grow to cover a 1" sensor --conceivably an option considered, vis-a-vis use of that sensor size in the FZ1000. (Some of us prefer MORE DoF and like the "fast"ness of "fast glass" for getting ample light to keep ISOs low & quality good.)
jkoch2: The LX7 has time lapse, built-in ND filter, 120fps 720p video, and currently sells for $260 at Amazon. The sensor is only 1/1.7, but the lens is a fast f/1.4 at wide and f/2.8 at long. It fits in a large pants pocket or any coat pocket.
Is it really worth another $600 to get a m4/3 sensor and 4k? Hard to think up a good lie that will persuade SWMBO.
That mechanical lens cover looks a bit vulnerable in the open mode, as if it could be circumcised accidentally.
correction : The LX*7* has a faster lens : 1.4 .. 2.3@60mmEquiv, not "2.8". (vs. 1.7 .. 2.8@75mm (maybe 2.5@60?))
Drofnad: > It annoyed me when Nikon used to produce H and S versions of its pro-end bodies, offering either resolution or speed. I knew that what we all wanted, and would eventually get, was both.
The letters were/are "H" & "X"; "s" (lowercase) is for an upgrade (the "H" was dropped for default, and only "X" used now for high-resolution. But where is the "get both" (in one camera)?! --in Canon's 1DX, perhaps? D3 saw D3X, and frankly D4 & D4s are complementing D800/e bodies (as the 1DX might be seen to stand vis-a-vis the 5DmkIII, though those resolutions are quite close). (One can read of people wanting a "D4X" (with not merely 36mpx but 54!).)
?? What about "D40X" is inconsistent? --it IS a mpx boost to the D40, and is consistent in that regard (as contrasted with, e.g., the D70s upgrade w/o such sensor change to the D70).
SammyToronto: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this thing doesn't look beautiful to me. It may be built like a tank, but it looks like the average Sony/Samsung mirrorless camera and less attractive than the average Fuji/Olympus mirrorless camera.
Now, I'm not talking about performance, status, heritage or any of that, but purely on the aesthetic level this Leica underwhelms.
Amen, you said it. (That red badge makes reviewers go nuts. (Somehow, the ol' D-Lux4 was supposed to be soooo lovely vs. the LX3, though it lacked the functional element --a grip-- of the cheaper camera (one could pay even MORE to add the grip!).)
> It annoyed me when Nikon used to produce H and S versions of its pro-end bodies, offering either resolution or speed. I knew that what we all wanted, and would eventually get, was both.